A few months ago, California NORML Director, Dale Gieringer, was quoted as saying in an email;
It's hard to tell whether SK3 is run by fools or by hucksters; in either case, it would be foolish to put any faith in them.
Gieringer also said of SK3 Group;
The cultivation facilities they are proposing are blatantly illegal under federal law, which will make it impossible for them to win FDA approval. While they have claimed that what they are doing is legal because they are producing CBD, not THC, the fact is that CBD is 100% illegal under federal law.
I wonder what Dale would say about SKTO's recent press release in which the company says their licensed products are seeing wide distribution across California since the products mentioned are suppose to be "not-for-profit"? Does SK3 plan to sell these products at cost in order to remain compliant with Prop 215, SB420, and AG Guidelines? YAK Edibles were introduced in 2010 and claimed on the packaging they were produced in small batches under a non-profit structure.
How did SK3 obtain the rights to these products? Did someone sell them snake oil? In last weeks press release that misspelled the Presidents last name, we see this puzzling statement;
A. Mayer, President SK3 Group, said, "Mass distribution in the States that are now selling medical cannabis is the key to the growth of the company and ultimately the revenue and we feel we are making great strides toward that end."
The company plans to release a taped conference call next week. Perhaps they will explain to shareholders why they would be involved with not-for-profit products in California and how this will benefit shareholders.
Since entering the non-profit medical marijuana space in California, SK3's subsidiary, Medical Greens, claims they contracted and are owed over $18 million for about 4 months worth of services. If this doesn't turn out well for shareholders, and it appears it may not based on the rise and fall in stock price, will Gavin Newsom's endorsement of SK3 be the end of his political career? Newsom has not responded to requests to explain his endorsement.
Shareholders were quick to praise Newsom's endorsement, but quicker to attack Dale Gieringer's critical remarks about management. Gieringer is a private citizen and has a right to his opinion. Newsom is a public figure that is suppose to be a public servant. Gieringer explained his position while citing federal law. It's time Newsom did the same. Endorsing a company with plans to violate state and federal law could be a political disaster if SK3 follows through with previously announced plans and recent updates.
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.